Fifty Plus (50+) - Help With Prostate Cancer Treatment

I was diagnosed 4 years ago at age 60 with a slow growing cancer in my prostate. Knowing the risks attached to these treatments, I opted for watchful waiting. My PSA scores have unfortunately been increasing recently, as have my urination issues. Last month my oncologist advised that the nodule on my prostate has increased in size, and he recommended that I get treatment this year. After a lot of research, I am leaning towards brachytherapy (radioactive seed implantation)....but. The oncologist advised that my butt would be too sore to ride my bike for awhile. Any comments or guidance? Thanks.

Only my very best wishes and hope for success.

Thanks.

The good news for you is that the doctor thinks the cancer is still contained within the prostate.

I am pretty certain about one thing, the time off the bike is a lot less with brachytherapy then with removing the prostate. I had my prostate removed two years ago and was told to not ride for 4 weeks.

If the time off the bike really is a concern, I think there are some external beam radiation therapies that shouldn't affect your time off the bike like brachytherapy.

Good luck and wishing you a lifetime of low PSA numbers.

Had seed implants about 5 years ago.
Works just as advertised!
In/out of hospital in half-a-day.
Off the bike for about 4 weeks.
Backside was, as my wife described: "beautiful technicolor!"
Attempted to get on bike several times, butt was just a bit too tender.
Finally adjusted saddle tilt jus a bit and been riding ever since.
Get 'er done!
Pedal on!
Rudy/zonatandem

That watchful waiting is not a good treatment for PCa. Whatever you do decide on treatment- get it done soon.

Had mine removed October 7, 2011. Off bike two weeks before surgery and 8 weeks after. Butt soreness during post surgery recovery but getting on the bike the exact day I was cleared to do so actually helped and have been riding ever since with no issues. I chose removal over other options and have no regrets. Surgery with Da Vinci method was a breeze.

Best of luck in which ever mans of treatment you choose. You'll be in my prayers, adding you to the prayer board this morning.

Bill

Radiation and hormone therapy are probably the only way that you will stay on the bike but neither of those is a picnic, either. External beam radiation can carry severe side effects, though rare. Unluckily, my highly aggressive cancer came back 6 years after a radical prostatectomy, necessitating external radiation and hormone therapy. I now have a damaged rectum that has been repaired and am having cystoscopy in a couple weeks to determine if I also have radiation/scar damage to my bladder. I'm the poster boy for the worst case scenario.

If my doc told me that I could have brachytherapy and I'd only be off the bike 4 weeks, I'd go for it. Your sex life will be better and you'll have way less complications. Count your lucky stars and do it. I was never offered brachytherapy due to a 5 element in my Gleason score, a small prostate, and the non-containment of the disease.

Good luck! :thumb:

I'm following this thread with interest, as my father had prostate cancer late in life (successfully treated with radioactive pellet implants), and my doctor says mine is "prominent," prompting us to keep a close watch on it and my PSA levels at each annual physical. So far, so good, with only modest urinary issues, barely bad enough to even be called a nuisance. But it's good to be forearmed with info, should the worst occur.

Denny, I had no idea about your issues. I'm sorry to hear them, and I wish you nothing but the best from here on out.

Radiation and hormone therapy are probably the only way that you will stay on the bike but neither of those is a picnic, either. External beam radiation can carry severe side effects, though rare. Unluckily, my highly aggressive cancer came back 6 years after a radical prostatectomy, necessitating external radiation and hormone therapy. I now have a damaged rectum that has been repaired and am having cystoscopy in a couple weeks to determine if I also have radiation/scar damage to my bladder. I'm the poster boy for the worst case scenario.

If my doc told me that I could have brachytherapy and I'd only be off the bike 4 weeks, I'd go for it. Your sex life will be better and you'll have way less complications. Count your lucky stars and do it. I was never offered brachytherapy due to a 5 element in my Gleason score, a small prostate, and the non-containment of the disease.

Good luck! :thumb:


I also had the radiation and hormone therapy (2008) but it was augmented with brachytherapy (77 isotopes). I opted for the orthoscopic surgery but was told it wasn't an option because of my leukemia. So far, I have not had any major issues from the radiation therapy. A new option is Cyber Knife, which came out after my treatments were completed. There are a lot of treatments available for prostate cancer, none of which should be influenced by time off the bike. Treatment should be determined by the severity of the cancer and your your ability to handle the treatment. Do lots of your own research and determine which treatment is right for you.

That watchful waiting is not a good treatment for PCa. Whatever you do decide on treatment- get it done soon.



I disagree.

I opted for that, and my numbers went down.

Even if they didn't, most prostate tumors grow so slow something else is going to
kill you first.

There's no rush, and lots of reasons to wait.

I disagree.

I opted for that, and my numbers went down.

Even if they didn't, most prostate tumors grow so slow something else is going to
kill you first.

There's no rush, and lots of reasons to wait.


I agree. AND, it's not called watchful waiting anymore; it's called active surveillance. Time is your friend in the right conditions. Who knows where medical science will be in another 3 to 4 years. I've been on active surveillance for the last four years and I thank my lucky stars every day.

Matt

Thanks so much everyone. Time off the bike, as love2pedal and John V said, shouldn't be the issue. I agree. 4 or 5 weeks is perfectly acceptable to me when it may result in many more years of cycling (and reading this forum). Stapfam, I noticed this change (from 'watchful' to 'active') a couple of years ago. I have been actively surveilled....PSA tests (I will never enjoy these) every 3 months, and the old finger test (I enjoy these even less) every 6 months. I have done a lot of research on treatments, looking for the least invasive procedure with the best outcomes. I am still a fan of brachytherapy at this point. Again...thanks for your comments and prayers.

I disagree.

I opted for that, and my numbers went down.

Even if they didn't, most prostate tumors grow so slow something else is going to
kill you first.

There's no rush, and lots of reasons to wait.

That's not totally true. Not all prostate cancers are the same; some are aggressive and watchful waiting could be deadly. If your doctor says it's time and you don't agree, then you better be sure you get a second opinion before totally disregarding the doctor's advice.

Mine was very aggressive and had already escaped the capsule and taken out my semen ducts. Watchful waiting would have been the most ignorant thing that I could have done. By the way, I was 51 when my cancer was found and 57 when it returned.

Remember what I said earlier about the cancer having spread beyond the prostate? Even after a prostatectomy and a wide margin removal, it still returned and was found to be growing like a runaway freight train.

I agree with watchful waiting or active surveillance or whatever sanitized name wants to call it as long as it's based on good medical advice, but it certainly is not a good strategy in all cases.

I disagree.

I opted for that, and my numbers went down.

Even if they didn't, most prostate tumors grow so slow something else is going to
kill you first.

There's no rush, and lots of reasons to wait.


My Diary shows Doc gave a Rectal as I was of that age in January 2001. No symptoms what so ever except he found the prostate was enlarged. PSA count came back as 16 and that is high. Biopsy in March and all 6 samples showed Cancer. Radical Prostatectomy in June and it was 5 years later that I was I was declared clear. I was also given the reason for in that 5 years having a PSA test every 3 months. From March to the OP I had lots of tests and no adverse signs to stop the operation but the Examination on the prostate after showed the cancer was right through it and did not have long before it would have spread. Within a few weeks it would have spread tp other parts of the body.

Now if the initial PSA test is low and further tests do not show growth then no treatment is required- but as soon as it is determined there is a problem and a Biopsy shows that the problem is Acute then Action has to be taken Quickly. Biopsy is the only way to confirm severity and if any sign of cancer is found then you do not have long before it will spread through and from the prostate. But PSA count is just an indicator that there could be a problem. I worked with someone that had a PSA count of 27. Biopsy every 6 months and no cancer has been found and this has been going on for the last 15 years. He is now 75 and decided not to have any more biopsy's

Prostate Cancer Kills and it is not long that it develops from a Problem to a life threatening condition. Watch and See is not a treatment that provides a cure. And like Trsnrtr-I was only 54 when I had the problem. it is not just an old mans disease.

We had a similar thread going around the 50+ forum several months ago, and some of the responses really shocked me. It makes me really wonder just how many men really understand, or want to understand, prostate cancer and the methods used to diagnose it. I always hear that they hate taking a PSA test. It's only a blood test! I would venture to say that it's the test results and not the method of testing, that scares most men.

An elevated PSA is not an indication or diagnosis of prostate cancer, nor will it ever be. It only indicates that your prostate is releasing more antigens than what is considered normal and your PSA can be elevated for several different reasons. A digital exam only serves to determine if the prostate is normal in size and consistency (deformities or hard spots). A wait and see type of treatment is usually recommended for elevated PSA if it is the first time that the PSA is found to be high. However, a second test is normally scheduled in 6-12 months to check for the PSA Velocity to indicate whether further testing is required. The PSA Velocity is the time it takes for the levels to rise from test A to test B. The higher the rise and the shorter the time and you most likely have a problem. My PSA rose from 2.4 to 4.6 in one year and to 6.2 three months later. This definitely indicated immediate attention and a biopsy.

Granted, prostate biopsies are not fun and can have severe complications, but not having one done, if needed, can quickly turn fatal. Lots of lymph nodes in the area around the prostate and that's one cancer I definitely don't want to deal with. Depending on the results of the biopsy (Gleason Score), is when you should start considering the type of treatment that is best for you. Cancers with low Gleason Scores respond well to brachytherapy and in many cases, that's all that is required. Personally, I would never consider brachytherapy, alone, with a Gleason Score of 6 or higher (max is 10, mine was 8.8). I have several friends that have had the orthoscopic surgery with low Gleason Scores, just to decrease the chances of it returning. Also consider the number of lanced that will be used (6 or 12). The more lances that are used, the greater the risk of complications, but the results are twice as accurate.

Having spent over 20 years in the medical field, understanding prostate cancer (and my leukemia) was easy for me. Might I suggest to those that are not 100% sure about prostate cancer, that you find a board certified urologist and let them explain it to you. Just don't leave their office until you are 100% sure you understand all that was covered. And don't be afraid to ask questions, especially if you are not certain of the answer. The more you know, the less the fear.

Good info, John. Understanding what is going on is vital. One size (treatment) does not fit all in prostate cancer.

This story is in the news today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47505948/ns/health-mens_health/#.T7rDSsXNmT4

I can't understand this Tom. It was my PSA test that first alerted my family doctor that I needed to have a biopsy. Yes, there are risks in having a biopsy, but if I didn't have one, my cancer may have gone untreated....and may have subsequently spread. BTW, I have defintely decided to have the brachytherapy treatment next November. Why November? Who wants to miss out on summer riding?

John V., my Gleason Score is 6....

"“There is convincing evidence that the number of men who avoid dying of prostate cancer because of screening after 10 to 14 years is, at best, very small,”"

What is "very small"????

This story is in the news today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47505948/ns/health-mens_health/#.T7rDSsXNmT4

What is the fastest growing age group in the US today? Baby Boomers. As a rule what age group does prostate cancer begin to develop? Baby Boomers. Welcome to the future of government controlled healthcare.

PSA testing saved my life and I hope to live long enough to draw my SS and Medicare if it survives.

Sorry folks but this really gets under my skin. Since my encounter with prostate cancer I have made it my mission to talk about it and encourage all guys my age to get their PSA tested.

This story is in the news today:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47505948/ns/health-mens_health/#.T7rDSsXNmT4


I started to read this article and just couldn't go any further than the second paragraph:

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave the prostate-specific antigen test a grade of D, saying that the risks of population-wide screening outweigh the benefits."

:wtf: These guys have either got to be complete morons or have been seriously lobbied by the insurance companies. Someone please explain to me the risks of a simple blood test which is normally done during an annual physical, anyway. That statement definitely sounds like an insurance company statement. I hate to think of the number of men that will get undetected prostate cancer because they believe this statement and don't have a annual test done.

I wonder about that too.

I know a couple of men who have had multiple negative prostate biopsies because of a positive PSA. That's expensive but hardly life threatening.

Medicine always follows the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

I wonder about that too.

I know a couple of men who have had multiple negative prostate biopsies because of a positive PSA. That's expensive but hardly life threatening.

Medicine always follows the Golden Rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.


If a doctor sends them off for a biopsy just on the results of a single PSA test, your friends need to find another doctor.

BTW, I was having lunch with my wife today and the resturant we were at had Fox News Channel on and there were a panel of urologist from some of the leading medical schools that were being interviewed. They also think the members of this panel, with no urologist on it, are morons and are giving bad and very dangerous advice.

I started to read this article and just couldn't go any further than the second paragraph:

"The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force gave the prostate-specific antigen test a grade of D, saying that the risks of population-wide screening outweigh the benefits."

:wtf: These guys have either got to be complete morons or have been seriously lobbied by the insurance companies. Someone please explain to me the risks of a simple blood test which is normally done during an annual physical, anyway. If you read the rest of the article you would find that the risk is not the blood test itself but in the often unnecessary treatment that follows a positive test. The benefits are small relative to the risks and undesirable effects of treatment.

If you read the rest of the article you would find that the risk is not the blood test itself but in the often unnecessary treatment that follows a positive test. The benefits are small relative to the risks and undesirable effects of treatment.

There is no such thing as a positive PSA test, only an elevated antigen level, which in itself, means nothing. As a patient, you have the responsibility of understanding what procedures are being discussed and what the results mean. You always have the option of getting another opinion and if you understand what you are up against, you have the right to decide if further testing is needed.

One thing I have found out in all the years I was in the medical profession is that, in general, men don't bother to take the time to understand their bodies and the diseases that come with it, as do women. A similar study was released with the same results regarding mamograms. Women who knew better, screamed and hollered loud enough to keep the insurance companies from using the results of the study to stop paying for mamograms. I think if men would worry more about the cancer rather than their manhood and become more involved in the decision making, there would be the same outcry against this study as their was against not doing mamograms.

There is no such thing as a positive PSA test, only an elevated antigen level, which in itself, means nothing. As a patient, you have the responsibility of understanding what procedures are being discussed and what the results mean. You always have the option of getting another opinion and if you understand what you are up against, you have the right to decide if further testing is needed.

One thing I have found out in all the years I was in the medical profession is that, in general, men don't bother to take the time to understand their bodies and the diseases that come with it, as do women. A similar study was released with the same results regarding mamograms. Women who knew better, screamed and hollered loud enough to keep the insurance companies from using the results of the study to stop paying for mamograms. I think if men would worry more about the cancer rather than their manhood and become more involved in the decision making, there would be the same outcry against this study as their was against not doing mamograms.This response seems much more reasonable than your earlier posts.

In any case, the results of a large study monitored over 13 years found no significant decrease in mortality for the group which received PSA screening vs the control group. This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and their conclusions have nothing to do with insurance companies desire to save a couple of dollars on a PSA test.

The treatment and detection of prostate cancer is not black and white. It is not a simple matter to decide whether to aggressively treat prostate cancer when in many cases the treatment and side effects end up being worse than the cancer.

Interesting thread. I just went through HIFU treatment about six weeks ago. My PSA has been elevated several times in the past years due mostly to an enlarged prostate. After some treatment, the PSA would decrease back to an "acceptable" level. However, late last year, it was slightly elevated but would not go down. The urologist said he wanted to play it safe and perform another biopsy ( I've had three before, but none in the last five years). The last biopsy showed one spot that was positive, and the Gleason score was 3 by 3 (6). One of the factors that I found out with this diagnosis was, my grandfather and two uncles (one on each side) died from prostate cancer, but no one ever wanted to discuss it! Aggggh! Once I notified my doctor of the family history he told me not to wait but to take action now. I was on Bicalutimide to reduce the prostate size, I had a TURP operation to widen the track and to cut out part of the prostate (which turned out to have no cancer cells). Then I had the HIFU performed. It was expensive, but I did not want to try the DaVinci method (personal choice). For what it's worth, my urologist did not want to go down either of the radiation treatment methods. Now I'm waiting for my first PSA to verify the treatment was effective (have to wait around three months).
As for having a PSA test routinely, if I'm around another 10 years, it will be because of closely monitoring PSA. I was very upset with the ridiculous findings of the government evaluation of PSA testing. I'll bet Obama has his PSA taken regularly.

Would a recumbent allow you to ride in spite of a sore butt due to the radioactive seed? Although it might be better to just stay off the bike for the short time rather than buy a bike you'll only use 4-6 weeks.

I am a little confused. If PSA tests are not considered a valid test to decide if further tests/monitoring are needed, then how will the medical profession determine that we are at risk of having prostate cancer? There are no risks attached to this simple blood test. Yes, there are some risks attached to a biopsy if not done correctly. I consider this risk worth it, given the alternative.

Yes, there are some risks attached to a biopsy if not done correctly. I consider this risk worth it, given the alternative.Many people will not die of prostate cancer if it's untreated. They'll die of something else first. The risks are associated with potentially unnecessary treatments. I've read the studies and find it reasonable but I still get my PSA tested every couple of years.

There are lifestyle-related risk factors, primarily dietary. You cannot prevent any given type of cancer, but you can reduce your chance of getting it.

Simple choice for me, Government Panel be damned. Prostate cancer and cancer in general runs in my mother's family. Lost an uncle to PC and don't wish to go that way. Neighborhood I grew up in had its water well sunk into a PCB pool from when the area was a landfill during WWII. I'll continue to have the test regularly and a finger wave when it is called for. Insurance companies just seem to want our money and for us to go away and die young. YMMV

I read somewhere that if a man lives long enough and doesn't die from anything else, he will eventually get prostate cancer.

The problem with prostate cancer is that there are virtually no symptoms until the cancer has progressed to metastases in which case it becomes no different than any other life threatening disease.

PC can strike young and can be very aggressive. Like indycar asked, don't you have to start somewhere or do you put your head in the sand and hope for the best? At the very least, a digital exam should be performed yearly. My highly aggressive cancer was actually suspected that way. I never had a high PSA.

This study was funded by the National Cancer Institute and their conclusions have nothing to do with insurance companies desire to save a couple of dollars on a PSA test.

The treatment and detection of prostate cancer is not black and white. It is not a simple matter to decide whether to aggressively treat prostate cancer when in many cases the treatment and side effects end up being worse than the cancer.

Many people will not die of prostate cancer if it's untreated. They'll die of something else first. The risks are associated with potentially unnecessary treatments.

Being funded by and being lobbied by (which was what I posted) are two different things. I am willing to bet that the results of the study now gives the insurance companies a reason to stop paying for PSA test in men who are at the age of being at risk. I have to agree that when you reach a certain age (close to or over 80) and have other medical conditions, treating prostate cancer is probably not a top priority as you will most likely die from something other than the prostate cancer. This is not true for men between 50 and 70 who are in good or reasonably good health. On the other hand, my grandfather was 84 when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, back in the 60's. He was in good health, had no prior medical history and took no medications at the time of his diagnosis and they withheld treatment only because of his age. He died three years later because the cancer spread to his liver. I would have liked to have had my grandfather around for at least a few more years.

The treatment of PC is not black and white but a patient who is educated about the disease can make a more informed decision as to continue or withhold further testing and not leave it to the physician to decide for them. An educated patient will understand the difference between an elevated PSA level and the meaning of PSA Velocity to help him make that decision. If the patient's choice is to have a biopsy, an educated patient can decide where to have it done to decrease the risk of complications; by his doctor who does 10 a year or by someone who does several thousand a year. If the biopsy is positive, an educated patient can better determine the type of treatment that is best for him, rather than have a doctor decide. In my opinion, the treatment with the highest risk of further damage and/or side effects is cryotherapy. But many doctors suggest this as a sure thing treatment and many men just do it without knowing the dangers involved. If it goes wrong, it's too late.


I've read the studies and find it reasonable but I still get my PSA tested every couple of years.

As you can tell, I am a big proponent for prostate cancer education and preventive screening. Let's hope that the results of this study doesn't cause your next PSA test to become an out of pocket expense that will discourage you from having future tests done.

^^^, +1, Well written John, very well written.

Bill

Being funded by and being lobbied by (which was what I posted) are two different things. I am willing to bet that the results of the study now gives the insurance companies a reason to stop paying for PSA test in men who are at the age of being at risk.You have zero evidence that insurance companies had any influence on the studies and continuing to harp on that point reduces your credibility for some otherwise good points you make on patients educating themselves and taking an active role in their diagnosis and treatment. The only problem is that half the population has an IQ less than 100 and may not be capable of making reasoned decisions and need to rely on recommendations of their physician. If you believe insurance companies have an influence on studies you would also need to concede that Urologists may have a vested interest in performing more procedures than necessary.

It would be better if you took issue with their conclusion that the harm from routine blanket screening outweighs the benefits.

[QUOTE=John_V;14260911 I have to agree that when you reach a certain age (close to or over 80) and have other medical conditions, treating prostate cancer is probably not a top priority as you will most likely die from something other than the prostate cancer. This is not true for men between 50 and 70 who are in good or reasonably good health. [/QUOTE]

My doctor told me that the PSA test was rarely worthwhile. That 98% to 99% of the people who get a high PSA score and who have prostate cancer confirmed, are harmed more by the treatment than the cancer. That hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of men have gone through the treatment for no personal gain. That for these 98%+ men it would take 30+ years for them to die from prostate cancer, even if they had it. He has advised me to not bother with the test. That as I am now 57, the odds of dying from prostate cancer are much lower than the risks from many other factors.

That's what my doctor says.

I've only had my PSA tested once and it was very low. I suppose I may ask for it again at some time.

I am a little confused. If PSA tests are not considered a valid test to decide if further tests/monitoring are needed, then how will the medical profession determine that we are at risk of having prostate cancer? There are no risks attached to this simple blood test. Yes, there are some risks attached to a biopsy if not done correctly. I consider this risk worth it, given the alternative.


This is interesting. On our group ride tonight someone mentioned a new and much more accurate test than PSA for detecting prostrate cancer. All the info I have on this. Anyone have some info?

I think if men would worry more about the cancer rather than their manhood and become more involved in the decision making, there would be the same outcry against this study as their was against not doing mamograms.

What is this supposed to mean? By manhood, are you referring to the ability to have intercourse? And in regards to decision making ... is it only a decision if you decide to treat? And worry. What good is that? Four years ago I was diagnosed with a Gleason 6 at age 50. The doc wanted my prostate removed within the month. I sought out a second opinion. Since than I've been on Active Surveillance. This isn't sticking my head in the sand and for many is a harder decision than radically treating. I know, because I am a minority in my support group; most of which, if not all, are living with the side affects of treatment. If, after my next biopsy it is determined I need to treat, I will be forever be grateful and have no regret for every day I was able to postpone what is probably inevitable at my age. But people need to understand this is a business; not only for the insurance companies, but the surgeons and radiologist also.

But people need to understand this is a business; not only for the insurance companies, but the surgeons and radiologist also.

When we give in to the thought that our health and quality of life are "Just a Business" we are truly screwed. Your case is your case, really glad it has worked for you and truly hope you never need any treatment further than the active survail. I am with John on this matter as I lost a really close uncle to prostate cancer after first just waiting and observing the matter before doing the radioactive seed implantation. And I would never think you are sticking your head in the sand, you are doing what you think best. In this case one size does not fit all. My very best wishes for your continued good health.

Sorry this thread got so political and personal for all, I imagine it will lock shortly.

Bill

@gregf83

Whether or not insurance companies had an influence on the decision made by the panel may be immaterial at this time and was posted because of past experiences with insurance companies no longer wanting to paying for certain medications based on a particular university study. Insurance companies and urologist are business' and are in it to make money. If, on the basis of such a publicized study, the insurance company can save money by using that study to stop payment on a routine procedure that is done thousands of times a year, they will do so. And yes, many urologist will do the opposite and advise their patients to have unnecessary procedures in order to make more money. So we can put the insurance thing to rest.

I strongly believe that educating men in the area of male specific cancers is extremely important, so that they can play a major decision making role in the treatment process. I really don't think IQ level really has a lot to do with this. In the small rural community where my father-in-law lives (pop 600), they have an ALF/nursing home that has a women's health clinic that educates women about breast, ovarian and uterine cancer. They have nothing for men. This is a farming community and most of the residence have nothing more than a high school education. In our county, they have clinics for women in the migrant communities that do the same kind of education, most of whom can't speak English or can't even read Spanish. Again, nothing for men. Public libraries have several books, written in laymen terms, about male specific cancers. My wife is a reference librarian and has told me that some of the books she brought home, when I was diagnosed with prostate cancer, are no longer on the shelf because of poor circulation. Yet books related to women's health circulate well. Why is this?

A few years ago, a similar study with the same conclusion, was released on the effectiveness of routine mammograms in diagnosing breast cancer. Just after the study was released, my wife got a letter from her health insurance company stating that they were no longer paying for annual mammograms. Women and women's groups made such a public outcry, that the same insurance company is now paying for annual mammograms. Have you heard anything from men's organizations about the results of this study? So yes, we can educate men, just as we do women, in the matters of male specific cancers. Or, we will have to concede that men are dumber than women and just can't understand.

@Tom

Did you get a second opinion? Was this your GP or your urologist? And the fact that you are thinking about another PSA test means that you may have some doubts about his thinking.

@matt

"What is this supposed to mean? By manhood, are you referring to the ability to have intercourse? And in regards to decision making ... is it only a decision if you decide to treat?"

Years ago, when I was in the medical profession, I read an interesting article in one of the medical journals about a study that was done on vasectomies. The overwhelming majority of men in the study/survey reported that they would rather have their wife or SO have a hysterectomy or have their tubes tied, with much greater risks of complications to the woman, instead of them having a simple vasectomy with fewer risk of complications to them. The reason was because they weren't letting a knife touch their boys. I think that many men shy away from issues of prostate and testicular cancers for similar reasons, which is a manhood thing.

The fact that you did nothing after being diagnosed was a "decision." It was one that you made after being told you had cancer and, hopefully, some facts that supported your decision. I was diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer while being treated for leukemia. I wanted one treatment procedure while my hematologist/oncologist wanted another. It wasn't until I did further research and had discussions with my wife, that I had to agree with my doctor. The treatment I decided to go with had more side effects than my original choice but had less risks to my leukemia. Given the same circumstances and having gone through the treatment, I would make the same decision again

This may be a coincidence, but this is a screen shot of the Google Adds on the BF page when I started this post.

252333

@Tom

Did you get a second opinion? Was this your GP or your urologist? And the fact that you are thinking about another PSA test means that you may have some doubts about his thinking.


It was my GP, a Dr of Internal Medicine. I don't have a urologist. I am thinking of tacking on a PSA on my annual blood test. Not really giving it much of a thought. Will probably forget to ask when the moment comes due.

This may be a coincidence, but this is a screen shot of the Google Adds on the BF page when I started this post.Definitely not a co-incidence.

By the way I agree 100% with the need for more resources available to men when dealing with prostate cancer. My FIL was diagnosed with prostate cancer at the age of 77 and I helped steer him through the medical system including access to an experimental drug, abiraterone. Many elderly, non tech savvy, patients don't have the tools available to make proper decisions.

Ads don't show up for me as I have Adblock and Firefox.